Question about rule 6

[adam]

Can you burn'm to DVD to watch? If so, are you then supposed to destroy the copy?

Format shifting is implied at least to some degree in Fair Use. So long as you were exercising Fair Use viewing of the recorded signal, yes I don't see why you couldn't shift it to a different medium. The key is that you and/or your family don't watch it repeatedly or add it to your library.

It seems odd that there can be such a huge market for PVR, Tivo type stuff and and yet it is essentially illegal.

Not everything broadcasted is copyrighted and some copyright holders grant express rights to repeated viewings of any recordings made. Many news programs do this for example. The fact that a PVR can be used for something illegal does not make the device per se illegal anymore than a crowbar would be illegal since it could be used to break into a car. One of the main things that the Betamax ruling (what gave us all theses time-shifting/Fair Use guidelines) did was establish that 3rd party manufacturers are held to a less stringent standard for contributory copyright infringement than individuals are. A product need only have a "substantially non-infringing purpose" to be lawful, nothwithstanding the fact that some or even many people may use it to commit copyright infringement. The main test applied is that the device's primary purpose cannot be to commit copyright infringements. Studies were performed and presented in the Betamax case that suggested that, just as a matter of general practice, the majority of recorded broadcasts are only viewed once then re-recorded over.

With that said, the motion picture industry has been trying for years to have certain repeated viewing/favorites/etc functions removed from PVRs. Tivo at least has sort of caved in and implemented these lock outs into their hardware but just have not activated it yet. Its a little time bomb.

[loopyloops]

ok
walk into a head shop, can you use any of the stuff there for what it was intended for?
nope :)
but the selling and distrubution of paraphinatial<SP?> is legal and as such VC/PRVs are legal and other such devices
Good example - I used it, too :-)

[Inventive Software]

May I clear up something here?

COPYING IS NOT THE SAME AS STEALING!!!!

<rant>
Sorry, but it gets on my nerves the amount of people that think that copying is the equivalent of stealing.</rant>

It's only stealing if the person that copied the product distributed it. That's when it's punishable. Common sense in all countries dictates that just because something carries the same sentence as another crime doesn't automatically mean that it's the same as that crime. Except in the US where anything goes so long as it passes through congress, regardless of how much sense it makes. <rant> F*** the RIAA and MPAA for trying to prevent their customers from having a right to a reasonable backup as they see fit.</rant>

[Rockas]

@Inventive Software
You are right... a legal copy is not stealing... an illegal one (as I said before - read my posts :)) in my oppinion IS... no matter how nice words you use to define it.

I don't dive a s@#t for RIAA and MPAA either... all my thought are directed to the ones that deserves all the respect: developers... composers... writters... after all the CREATORS of every thing that people like... copy... and sometimes... just sometimes... make a copy to a friend... that makes a copy to a friend... so on...

[loopyloops]

And, just because a judge (who's no copyright expert) says making an illegal copy isn't stealing - doesn't mean it's not. If you take what's mine - or any copyright owners - w/o permission, you're stealing - point blank.

[MaximRecoil]

And, just because a judge (who's no copyright expert) says making an illegal copy isn't stealing - doesn't mean it's not. If you take what's mine - or any copyright owners - w/o permission, you're stealing - point blank.

The judge used sound logic and a basic understanding of the English Language to arrive at his conclusion, and also, how do you know he isn't an expert on copyright law?

I like the way he worded it; far more elequently than I have ever managed to, even though I have always said the same thing (fundamentally), a product of ordinary reason, logic, and English comprehension:
The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use."
And there is the difference. With stealing, the thief does assume physical control over the property, and does wholly deprive the owner of its use. So there is a fundamental difference. That is not debatable.
When I hold the copyright to a song, it's my right and my property, and I'm the only one (unless I license it elsewhere) who has the right to copy it, so in that sense, it's stealing my right.This would be an infringement upon your right, not a theft of your right. You see, in theft, the thing stolen is no longer accessible to the rightful owner, i.e. it's gone. In such a case of copyright infringement, you still have your right to copy it, among all the other associated rights, so they have not been stolen/taken away from you.

[adam]

Once again that judge never said that making an unauthorized copy wasnt stealing, he said it was not theft. Theft and stealing are not the same thing.

Inventive Software you are using the wrong terminology. Please read my first post in this thread. Unauthorized copying is indeed stealing. What you are talking about is theft.

[MaximRecoil]

Theft and stealing are not the same thing.
Since when?
theft ( P ) Pronunciation Key (thft)
n.
The act or an instance of stealing; larceny.
steal ( P ) Pronunciation Key (stl)
v. stole, (stl) sto·len, (stln) steal·ing, steals
v. intr.
To commit theft.
Unless you are talking about stealing in the sense of "You stole my idea!" or "You stole my thunder!"

But of course, no one ever says something like "You know, you having a bake sale on the same day as me is stealing." (steal an idea) or "You know, you bringing up your Doctorate after I mentioned my Bachelor's Degree is stealing." (steal thunder).

[foxyshadis]

Look, you guys can argue semantics all day long, but the judge was attempting to make a distinction between physically losing something, and retaining it but having your exclusive rights infringed. Really, copyright is a property rights issue, it has very little to do with theft and more to do with someone hunting on your property illegally. You're deprived of exclusive rights and some intangible (# of future deer, # of future sales), but not deprived of the property.

Besides, Maxim, you're looking in the wrong place, you should know by now that the law has very precise and often different meanings for words, compared to webster's.

[MaximRecoil]

Besides, Maxim, you're looking in the wrong place, you should know by now that the law has very precise and often different meanings for words, compared to webster's.I think that legally, everything is already clear, i.e. it is copyright infringement. When someone is saying that it is like stealing, or it is stealing, they are comparing it to a non-legal term (stealing), so the dictionary definitions do apply; unless they are trying to say that legally, it is stealing; in which case they would be wrong; because legally, it is copyright infringement, not theft (the terms "theft" and "larceny" being the legal equivalent of the term "stealing").

[adam]

copyright infringement... When someone is saying that it is like stealing, or it is stealing, they are comparing it to a non-legal term (stealing), so the dictionary definitions do apply;

Bingo. Theft and larceny are specific crimes. (names differ by jurisdiction and amount involved but they are generally legal equivalents) They have a well settled common law meaning and that has been codified by statute in every local jurisdiction. An absolute requirement of the crime is that it involve personal (tangible) property and the intent to physically deprive the owner of that property.

As you agree, stealing is not a legal term per se, in that the action is not specifically governed by statute. It is quite simply a verb that means to take something and it does not have the same tangible requirements that theft/larceny do. Like I said, it is a catch-all term that applies to many acts, whether they are criminally or civilly actionable or not. That is my whole point. It means nothing to call an act stealing, ie: steal my thunder. Stealing can and does apply to the taking of intangibles like property interests (copyright, name and/or likeness, trademark, patents, etc..) Hell one of the most common legal uses of stealing pertains to slander, just as a matter of practice.

We understand the distinction you are trying to make but its already been stated multiple times in the thread, and isn't even being disputed.

[MaximRecoil]

We understand the distinction you are trying to make but its already been stated multiple times in the thread, and isn't even being disputed.The thing is, when people compare copyright infringement to stealing, or actually say that it is stealing, they are using it in the "steal a bike" sense, rather than the "steal thunder" sense. The word "stealing", when used alone to describe the general act of "stealing" is always understood to mean theft. When you add "thunder" or "idea" to it, then the different meaning is understood by default. It is like if you say "He cried.", that would be understood as "He wept." or something similar, but the sentence "Watch out for the cliff! he cried", then "wept" is obviously not what is meant here.

It seems like this same argument comes up everywhere. Here is a statement I replied to on a different forum a few months ago:
And the old "well, I wouldn't have bought the game anyway" statement doesn't cut it. That's like going into Denny's having a big meal then leaving without paying, and defending yourself by saying "well, I wouldn't have eaten there anyway".
Anyway, the people who are putting forth the analogy to "stealing", definitely don't have "stealing thunder" in mind, they have "stealing tangible stuff" in mind, and that is a fallacious analogy.

[Dayvon]

The thing is, when people compare copyright infringement to stealing, or actually say that it is stealing, they are using it in the "steal a bike" sense, rather than the "steal thunder" sense. The word "stealing", when used alone to describe the general act of "stealing" is always understood to mean theft. When you add "thunder" or "idea" to it, then the different meaning is understood by default. It is like if you say "He cried.", that would be understood as "He wept." or something similar, but the sentence "Watch out for cliff! he cried", then "wept" is obviously not what is meant here.

It seems like this same argument comes up everywhere. Here is a statement I replied to on a different forum a few months ago:

Anyway, the people who are putting forth the analogy to "stealing", definitely don't have "stealing thunder" in mind, they have "stealing tangible stuff" in mind, and that is a fallacious analogy.

This is one of the best explanations that I have heard. People use the different words because they give the word different meanings. I'm in agreement as well that "stealing" is not the best descriptor for illegal copying of copyrighted content. And I REALLY can't stand those cheezy clips at the beginning of some modern DVD's. Oh man, the campaign of shameless bitching for not making enough $$$$$$ on the booming DVD sales, that alone makes me want to copy 'em just for spite :devil: , but alas, the only thing that happens is that my hate for the RIAA/MPAA continues to grow.

[Inventive Software]

You could also say that copying something for personal use is completely legitimate. If you distribute it, and ONLY when you distribute it, does the time for punishment arrive.

If you were to copy the original medium as it is, with no changes, then that couldn't be considered an infringement of the law because you are making no changes to the source or modifying something that would be illegal, such as decrypting the video from the DVD, and you are only making a backup in case the original media becomes unplayable.

Of course you could also say that it's not stealing if you don't get caught. ;)

[Inventive Software]

Another point: if you make a legitimate backup, then you derive a backup from that backup in any way how, is that a legitimate backup, or still an infringement of rights? Because if you have technically infringed the rights of the licensed distributor by making an unauthorised backup in the first place, even though you have kept a complete copy of the media that's unchanged, then surely it doesn't matter if you make a backup of the backup.

[adam]

Copyrights do not protect the individual medium you bought they protect the underlying content. Regardless of whether you are making a bit for bit identical copy or some altered form, regardless of whether you have to bypass any form of protection or not, it is an infringement to make any unauthorized copy of a copyrighted work unless your local copyright laws make an exception for it. Most countries make some exception for personal copying but rarely across the board. Musical works and computer software are two forms of content that are usually exempted for personal use copying. Audio/visual works typically are not exempted. Your local laws will go into more detail as to how you can exercise your rights. For example, in the US you can backup computer software but can only have that single backup (cannot backup your backup.)

Many people have argued that Fair Use could allow DVD backups, in just about any country. (Its a fairly universal concept). You could also make the argument that the practice is legally de minimus and therefore not actionable. But the fact is that these defenses have gone untested and so the practice falls under the general rule that any unauthorized copying of copyrighted content is an infringement. I think most people just let their conscience be their guide when it comes to this stuff since obviously it is not something that is enforced at the end user level.

[setarip_old]

Perhaps to refocus on the initial posting to this thread, as I understand it, the underlying purpose of Rule #6 (and similar rules at other forums) is to insulate the forum and its owner(s) from attacks/pressure from outside sources regarding what MIGHT be interpreted as supporting illicit/illegal (If you prefer, you plug in whatever word suits you - "piracy", "warez", "P2P", etc.) media copying activity.

If you accept my premise, then in my opinion, the only true need for Rule #6 is in those instances when a poster refers to "downloading".

In my opinion there should be a new subsection to Rule #6 that makes it a violation to try to "read into" a post as "probably meaning he/she downloaded" and posting to that effect in a thread, or to try to bait a poster into "confessing" to downloading and posting to that effect in a thread. Certainly, this forum is not being placed in jeopardy by a post that states, "I have an .AVI(MPEG/VOB/Bin and Cue/CD/SVCD, etc)" - and as long as the post doesn't create the possibility of placing the forum in jeopardy, it shouldn't be considered to be in violation of Rule#6 or any related "stickies" or "announcements"...

[MaximRecoil]

How old is "rule 6", especially the "downloading" part? I was searching through old posts here the other day, and I came across this (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=17631&highlight=downloaded+screener) post which I thought was absolutely hilarious.

So not only does the guy come out and say he downloaded it, but he gives the title and even mentions that it was a "screener". So I got a good laugh out of that anyway and figured that maybe it had simply flown under the radar of the moderators somehow. But then I came across this (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=17891&highlight=downloaded+divx) post...and look who replied to it with no admonition! I thought about replying to that old thread and telling Doom9 that he was getting a double strike for that, but I doubted he would've found it as funny as I would've, lol.

[Wilbert]

@MaximRecoil,

As far as i can see there were no forum rules before May 2002. I'm sure someone will correct me if i'm wrong.